Sunday, December 23, 2012

Several hundreds of students of the pre-army Mechinot institutions participated at a speical elections program that was held at the Begin Center this Sunday.

Among the candidates who came to explain and discuss and debate issues included Naftali Bennet, a Major in the reserves and a commander of a Sayeret Matkal team, who has been in the news in connections with remarks he made on the subject of refusing to serve as a reaction to political developments:

Saturday, December 22, 2012

In responding to the UN vote on Palestinian statehood, the government's decision to build in E-1 and in East Jerusalem is the exact opposite of the underlying principles of how Zionist and Israeli international policies have evolved over the years...It is not enough to think you are right and to convince your supporters of that: In the cruel world of international politics, a small nation can achieve its aims only if it is able to forge alliances with the powers-that-be and to ensure their support - not out of love, but because they are convinced there is congruence between their countries' interests, or their leaders' considerations, and the aims of, in this case, Zionism and the State of Israel.

Theodor Herzl imprinted this harsh truth into the DNA of political Zionism despite considerable objections from other Zionist leaders, who thought it was enough to be convinced yourself that you are right...That was the significance of Herzl's political Zionism: As a political journalist...the father of modern Zionism understood that small nations like the Greeks or Serbs had won independence not only thanks to the liberal voices in the European Christian world that raised an outcry against the Ottoman- Muslim oppression of those nations, but rather because Britain and Russia had an interest in weakening the Ottoman Empire and getting a foothold for themselves in the Balkans.

Realpolitik of this sort is also what was behind the willingness of the Zionist leadership, headed by Weizmann and David Ben- Gurion, to accept the idea of partition.. .

...This harsh reality of international politics was not grasped by the Revisionist movement, the major precursor of the Likud party: Vladimir Jabotinsky's impressive rhetoric in his dramatic appearance before the Peel Commission convinced no one, and the Revisionists' maximalism ("There are two banks of the Jordan River, this one is ours and that one too" ) was perceived as unacceptable. Jabotinsky also failed in his attempts to persuade British policy makers that the Yishuv was Britain's best ally in its fight against the Arab world, and would constitute its imperial vanguard in the region. Jabotinsky and his followers convinced themselves of this, but the British felt they knew better what their own interests were.

Ben-Gurion, however, understood very well...

...Menachem Begin, though he came from a different background, also understood this basic truth of international reality during his tenure as prime minister. There is no doubt that his willingness to make far-reaching concessions in Sinai derived not only from his desire to reach peace with Egypt, but also from his realization that in the new reality created following Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's dramatic gesture toward the Jewish state, Israel would win American and international support only if it took a significant step toward the Egyptian position, thereby helping the United States strengthen its foothold in the Middle East and reduce the Soviet Union's influence in the region. Begin did this with impressive courage, counter to his previous positions and those of his movement, and with a willingness to risk a painful rift with many of his own supporters.

These are exactly the characteristics that are so lacking in the current moves undertaken by the Netanyahu government...

Recently, while browsing through news clips I have collected over the past 30-plus years, I came across a story I wrote when I was a very young reporter for The Jerusalem Post.

“Dayan: Israel needs civilians in W. Bank,” the headline said. The story ran at the top left of the front page of this newspaper on October 17, 1979......What did Dayan say that day? “Just keeping the army in the territories and controlling a foreign people can’t be done any longer,” he declared. “This is not how we shall be in Gaza and Nablus. Our number one priority is to have Jewish civilians up to the Jordan, and then we shall also have soldiers, and then we shall have peace.”

He rejected the notion that settlements were built on Arab land: “We are not taking one acre from any Arab. I never heard one Arab complain that we are driving them out. Jewish settlements bring work and prosperity to the Arabs. They don’t like this policy but we shall do it whether they like it or not.”...

...One should not, of course, judge statements made in the past too harshly –20/20 vision is easy as long as it’s applied retrospectively. But it is hard not to be impressed by the sheer myopia and fatal naiveté of Dayan’s viewpoint.

He seemed to have envisaged a future in which Palestinians (a word he was careful to avoid using) would be content to live as a permanent minority alongside a growing settler population in exchange for the right to go shopping and work in Tel Aviv.

Dayan apparently could not imagine a way in which the Palestinians could effectively resist Israel, which held all the weapons and all the power. He seemed not to have envisioned either passive resistance or armed struggle. Instead, he trustingly foresaw Israelis proudly walking down the streets of Gaza, unthreatened by a cowed and compliant local population, while Palestinians would flock to the Dizengoff Center in Tel Aviv with string shopping bags.

IT’S POSSIBLE that Dayan’s real opinions were more nuanced and that he delivered this speech for the consumption of his gung-ho audience.

But there’s no doubt he was reflecting government policy and the deeply held views of his boss, Menachem Begin.

Begin’s vision, we now see, was an illusion built on wishful thinking and a willful misreading of the strength of Palestinian national identity.

Under his leadership, Israel began vastly expanding the settlements, helping to bring us to where we are today. Just as this flawed thinking helped create Israel’s current dilemma, the Netanyahu government’s determined defiance of international opinion in building yet more housing units in the territories will have grave implications for future generations. It is already threatening the viability of a two-state solution as well as the future of our Jewish, democratic state.

Dayan’s view was colored by arrogance: “They don’t like this policy but we shall do it whether they like it or not,” he said. Netanyahu seems to be cut from the same cloth.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Speaking at a symposium at the Menachem Begin Heritage
Center in Jerusalem, Ross said that people should believe Obama's declarations
that he will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

"When the administration began and [Obama] made it very
clear that he was prepared to pursue engagement with the Iranians, it was always
a means, it was never an end. It was a means to see if you could affect and
change Iran's behavior on the nuclear issue by dealing with them, but it was a
means to try to do that. It was also a means recognizing that this was a way to
build pressure on Iran," Ross said.

"If we reached out and the Iranians weren't responsive it
would be far easier to mobilize the world to put real pressure on the Iranians.
But you had to ask the question; what happens if we don't succeed?," he said.
"If we do everything we can but it doesn't succeed, are we prepared to live with
an Iran that has a capability and then contain it afterwards, or do we believe
that the acquisition of that capability is so profoundly threatening to our
interests that we really can't live with it and we have to prevent it?"

"If diplomacy fails, and I'm asked to give my advice, it
is very important that having stated prevention as an objective that we act on
it," he added.

"When President Obama says 'I don't bluff', I think he means what
he says. If diplomacy doesn't work, we have to be prepared to use force, and I
think we will be."

In the 1990s, Ross was appointed President Bill
Clinton's Middle East envoy and was involved in brokering peace talks between
Israel and the Palestinians. More recently, Ross served as an adviser to Obama
on Middle East affairs, before leaving the post in 2011.

At the symposium Wednesday, Ross argued that history had
showed that second-term presidents act much as they did in their first terms,
suggesting that Obama will not adopt a tougher stance toward Israel over the
next four years, contrary to the pessimistic assessments of some Israeli media
commentators.

Ross said that U.S.-Israel security cooperation, which was
already good under previous presidential administrations, got even better during
Obama's first term.

Ross also said the U.S. would remain consistent in its
stance that Iran could not be permitted to get nuclear weapons, even with
personnel changes at places like the Pentagon, where Chuck Hagel is expected to
replace Leon Panetta as defense secretary in the near future.

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Introduction

The Jewish Agency for Palestine had accepted the U.N. Partition
Plan of November 1947, even though it called for the establishment of a corpus
separatum in Jerusalem and its immediate environs, realizing that the only
realistic alternative at the time would have been the failure to decide on the
establishment of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. The failure of the
U.N. in the implementation of its own resolution, the Arab invasion of all parts
of Palestine, including Jerusalem, Count Bernadotte's proposal of June 1947 to
incorporate the whole of Jerusalem in an Arab state--the latter when Israel was
compelled to fight for its creation and survival--all these effected a
fundamental change in the situation and Israel's position. When the U.N. General
Assembly debated the issue of the internationalization of Jerusalem once more,
the Knesset debated the subject in rare unanimity.

Sitting 96 of the First Knesset

5 December 1949--14 Kislev 5710Tel Aviv, Knesset Building

The Prime Minister, D. Ben-Gurion: As you know, the U.N.
is currently discussing the issue of Jerusalem and the holy places. The State of
Israel is a member of the U.N., not because of political convenience but because
of its traditional, deep-seated commitment to the vision of world peace and the
brotherhood of nations, as preached by our prophets and accepted by the U.N.

This membership obliges us, from the podium of Israel's First
Knesset, to tell all the nations assembled at the U.N. and all those who love
peace and justice in the world what has been in Israel's heart since it became a
united nation under King David three thousand years ago as regards Jerusalem its
holy city and as regards its attitude to the places which are holy to the other
religions.

When we proclaimed the establishment of the renewed State of
Israel, on 14 May 1948, we declared that, "The State of Israel will guarantee
freedom of religion and conscience, of language, education and culture. It will
safeguard the Holy Places of all religions. It will be loyal to the principles
of the United Nations Charter." Accordingly, our delegation to the U.N.
announced that Israel would honor all the existing rights regarding the holy
places and sacred buildings in Jerusalem, assure freedom of worship and free
access...to all the holy sites under its control, recognizing the rights of
pilgrims of all religions and nations to visit their holy places and assuring
freedom of movement for clergymen. We agreed to allow effective U.N. supervision
of the holy places and the existing rights.

At the same time we see fit to state that Jewish Jerusalem is
an organic, inseparable part of the State of Israel, just as it is an integral
part of Jewish history and belief....Jerusalem is the heart of the State of
Israel. We are proud of the fact that Jerusalem is also sacred to other
religions, and will gladly provide access to their holy places and enable them
to worship as and where they please, cooperating with the U.N. to guarantee
this.

We cannot imagine, however, that the U.N. would attempt to
sever Jerusalem from the State of Israel or harm Israel's sovereignty in its
eternal capital.

Twice in the history of our nation were we driven out of
Jerusalem, only after being defeated in bitter wars by the larger, stronger
forces of Babylon and Rome. Our links with Jerusalem today are no less deep than
in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Titus Flavius, and when Jerusalem was attacked
after the fourteenth of May 1948, our valiant youngsters risked their lives for
our sacred capital no less than our forefathers did in the time of the First and
Second Temples.

...A nation which, for two thousand and five hundred years, has
faithfully adhered to the vow made by the first exiles by the waters of Babylon
not to forget Jerusalem, will never agree to be separated from Jerusalem. Jewish
Jerusalem will never accept alien rule after thousands of its youngsters
liberated their historic homeland for the third time, redeeming Jerusalem from
destruction and vandalism.

We do not judge the U.N., which did nothing when nations which
were members of the U.N. declared war on its resolution of 29 November 1947,
trying to prevent the establishment of Israel by force, to annihilate the Jewish
population in the Holy Land and destroy Jerusalem, the holy city of the Jewish
people.

Had we not been able to withstand the aggressors who rebelled
against the U.N., Jewish Jerusalem would have been wiped off the face of the
earth, the Jewish population would have been eradicated and the State of Israel
would not have arisen. Thus, we are no longer morally bound by the U.N.
resolution of November 29, since the U.N. was unable to implement it....

The attempt to sever Jewish Jerusalem from the State of Israel
will not advance the cause of peace in the Middle East or in Jerusalem itself.
Israelis will give their lives to hold on to Jerusalem, just as the British
would for London, the Russians for Moscow and the Americans for Washington.

This is the first time in this country's history that the state
controlling Jerusalem willingly accepts the principle of the international
supervision of the holy places. It is no coincidence that it is being done by
the nation which made Jerusalem an internationally sacred center and by the
first government elected by the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

We hope that the religions which honor Jerusalem's sanctity and
the nations which share our belief in the principles of peace and justice will
honor Israel's rights in Jerusalem, just as Israel honors those of all the
religions in its sacred capital and sovereign state.

Debate on the Prime Minister's Statement

...M. Begin (Herut): Distinguished Speaker, knowing that
our proposal to restore the status of the City of David as our capital will be
discussed at a joint meeting of the Constitution Committee and the Foreign
Affairs Committee next Wednesday and will then be brought before the plenum of
the Knesset, on behalf of the Herut party group founded by the IZL, I have the
honor of announcing that any attempt to impose alien rule on Jerusalem will be
smashed on the rock of the resistance of the entire nation.

The youth of Jerusalem, and of all Israel, which has drawn its
renewed strength from the eternal sources of the liberators of the homeland and
the rebels of Judea, which raised the banner of freedom aainst the British
oppressors, penetrating their strongholds and wreaking havoc among them, which
did not recoil from attacking forces far vaster than its own when more than one
hundred thousand well-armed soldiers and policemen sought to maintain alien rule
over our homeland, and which succeeded in overcoming the oppressors and driving
them out of part of the homeland and from Jewish Jerusalem, will thwart any
attempt, no matter by whom, to make Jerusalem subservient to foreigners once
again.

The Political Subcommittee, which is parallel to the U.N.
Assembly, passed a resolution reiterating the U.N. decision of 27 November 1947
to sever Jerusalem from the body of Israel. The official prestate institutions,
regrettably, accepted this, and we are happy to hear from the Prime Minister
today that that resolution is no longer valid. We believe that this statement
also applies to the Partition Plan. Foreign powers will not determine the
borders of our state. The nation that dwells in Zion will decide what the extent
of Israel's sovereignty shall be.

...Whatever the outcome of the debate in the U.N., we must
decide to put an end to the artificial situation in which we await the decision
of other nations regarding the fate of Jerusalem. On the contrary, the
representatives of other countries must be told quite clearly that the Jewish
nation has made its decision concerning Jerusalem. Our own hesitancy has allowed
the present situation to arise. The acknowledgement of the existence of "Jewish
Jerusalem," implying that some other Jeru-salem exists, has enabled other
nations to conclude that some parts of the nation are prepared to relinquish
certain sections of the city....

This must be stopped....The world must be told that Jerusalem
is ours, all of it--the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, Jerusalem inside and
outside the walls--and that it is our capital, both in practice and in theory.
This is a decision which the Knesset must make.

We no longer have pre-state institutions which must meet at
times of danger and pass resolutions protesting the decisions made by foreign
nations. We are a state, a sovereign state, and Jerusalem is ours. Justice,
history, emotions and faith favor undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
We no longer meet in order to protest. We will decide and implement our
decision....We must make it clear to the world that all of Jerusalem is our
capital.

...N. Yellin-Mor (Fighters): In making this statement I am
the representative of a public which is small in numbers but has considerable
specific weight. I speak in the name of soldiers who are alive today and of many
who did not survive, and on behalf of soldiers who raised the banner to free the
homeland several years ago. For them Jerusalem was not merely a holy symbol, but
a sacred objective in the endeavor to substitute Jewish for alien rule.

For them Jerusalem was a principal objective of the war and
also a testing point. Dozens of my colleagues spent many years in prisons in
Jerusalem, in the Russian Compound. There they appeared before the courts of the
foreign ruler, asking them: "Who are you to judge us here, in Jerusalem, the
capital of the Jewish homeland?" For their independence they were sentenced to
many years in prison. But they went to jail joyfully, knowing that even by doing
so they were undermining the oppressor's rule.

In the solitary confinement cells in Jerusalem my colleagues
wore the red garb of those who had been condemned to death, and Moshe Barazani,
together with Feinstein, a member of the IZL, tore their hearts out on the eve
of their execution, not wanting to fall at the hands of foreigners.

My colleagues fought on the walls of Jerusalem in the summer
months of 1948; there they shed their blood, and they were buried in Jerusalem's
soil.

...Consequently, there is no power in the world which can
deprive the Jewish nation of Jerusalem, which was conquered by fire and blood.
It will not be abandoned at the arbitrariness of those who raise their alien
hands to vote, no matter who they be. The shame of foreign oppression will not
return to Jerusalem! Foreigners will not order those who dwell in Jerusalem to
deny the blood that was shed for the city's freedom!

If the sanctity of graves is a political reason there are
thousands of fresh graves which are more sacred to us than anything else, and
they command us to fight for our capital. Every soldier will defend Jeru-salem,
and if additional sacrifices are required Jewish youngsters will willingly shed
their blood.

Let the foreigners who are discussing the fate of Jerusalem
take note of our call: Remove your hands from our capital! Jerusalem will be
Jewish forever, and its government will be only Jewish!

The Speaker, J. Sprinzak: Knesset Members, we have heard
the Prime Minister's statement and those of all the parties, all of whom spoke
clearly on the question of Jerusalem.

Despite the differing views, I declare that the entire Knesset
is united in stating that Jerusalem is an inseparable part of the State of
Israel and cannot be placed under foreign rule of any kind. This is the view of
the First Knesset of the State of Israel.

Introduction

In December 1948, at a conference which took place in Jericho,
a group of hand-picked leaders of Palestinian Arabs resolved to ask King
Abdullah of Transjordan to incorporate the Arab parts of Palestine into his
kingdom. The General Armistice Agreement of 3 April 1949 constituted de facto
recognition of that incorporation; however, it was specifically designed as a
military agreement which did not prejudice the political positions of the
contracting parties.

On 25 April 1949 the king officially changed the name of his
kingdom, henceforth to be known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Almost one
year later, having secured the support of Great Britain (albeit qualified--Great
Britain did not recognize the incorporation of East Jerusalem, maintaining that
it ought to be part of a corpus separatum, an international enclave), King
Abdullah went one step further. On 24 April 1950 the Jordan House of Deputies
and House of Notables, in a joint session, adopted a resolution declaring
"complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union in one
state...at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Hussain, on a basis of
constitutional representative government and equality of the rights and duties
of all citizens."

Almost a week later the Knesset devoted a sitting to a debate
of the subject.

Sitting 135 of the First Knesset

3 May 1950 (16 Iyar 5710)

...The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: Mr. Speaker, I have
asked for the floor now not in order to address the issue, but solely to clarify
the parliamentary status of the debate, which has been described as strange and
unprecedented.

It is strange to condemn an institution as young as this
Knesset for departing from precedent....I would like to point out that as far as
other parliaments are concerned it is quite customary that when the Opposition
demands a debate on a specific topic its leaders open the debate, and the
Government steps in only when it sees fit to do so. This Government subscribes
to that view, and will continue to do so in the future....

If, however, it is claimed, as MK Bar-Yehuda has done, that the
Government has not reacted and has said nothing about the recent event, I must
point out that this is not so....The Government Spokesman issued the following
statement, in the Government's name: "The decision to annex the Arab areas west
of the River Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a unilateral step to
which Israel is not a party in any way. We are connected with the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan through the Armistice Agreement, which we will uphold
rigorously. This agreement does not include any final political settlement,
however, and no such settlement is possible without negotiations and a peace
treaty between the sides. It must be evident, therefore, that the question of
the status of the Arab areas west of the River Jordan remains open as far as we
are concerned." A few days later, when the associated British announcement was
made, the Government stated: "With regard to the annexation of the Arab areas
west of the River Jordan by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Government has
already announced that it regards the status of these areas as being open. The
Government notes the fact that the British government does not intend to
establish military bases in the areas west of the River Jordan during peacetime.
The content of the treaty between Britain and Transjordan regarding these areas
is surprising, and the Government of Israel maintains its reservations about the
status of these areas." At present the Government has nothing to add to these
statements. It is interested in hearing the views of the Opposition and of the
House, reserving the right to react to what is said at any stage of the
debate.

M. Begin (Herut): Distinguished Speaker, we accuse Mr.
Sharett and the Government...of having given Abdullah and the Bevin
government...the green light to go ahead and turn an act of conquest and plunder
into a recognized political act. Last year the first agreement with the British
protectorate in the eastern part of the Land of Israel, called "the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan" by the conquerors and our Govern-ment, was submitted to us.
We warned the Government then that by signing that agreement it was granting
threefold recognition to the enemy: first--recognizing the separation of the
eastern part of Transjordan; second--openly recognizing the annexation of parts
of the western Land of Israel by the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan";
third--implicitly recognizing the validity of the enslaving treaty which
Bri-tain ordered its vassal Abdullah to sign, enabling it to establish military
bases in the territory he had conquered.

The Government took no heed of our warning, assuring the nation
that the agreement was merely a first step and would eventually be followed by a
peace agreement....It must be admitted that since then the Government has done
its best, or its worst, to obtain a peace agreement with King Abdullah, and its
failure is not its fault....We ask what benefit would we derive from an
agreement of this kind?...Our institutions tried in the past to win Abdullah's
heart by offering him a bribe...but for more than fifty years this has not
succeeded....The Cabinet Secretary has revealed...that prior to the invasion by
the Arab armies Mrs. Golda Meyerson (Meir), disguised as an Arab woman, was sent
on a dangerous...mission to Transjordan. I must congratulate the lady on her
courage and her expertise in conspiracy, but the fact is that she did not
succeed. (From the floor: How do you know?) Jerusalem is the proof.

When the invasion began Mr. Ben-Gurion made a supreme effort to
guarantee King Abdullah's friendship, praising him in public and saying: "I
believe in the peacable intentions of the wise ruler who seeks the welfare of
his people and his country."...But it was to no avail. As ordered by Glubb Pasha
and Clayton, Abdullah sent his Legion against us, destroying the Etzion Bloc,
attacking Jerusalem...and attempting to join up with the other Arab armies on
the coastal plain, thereby destroying our national endeavor and enabling Bevin
to..."rescue" those of us who remained and enclose us in a ghetto.

...Today Abdullah has no more than 15,000 soldiers, albeit
welltrained and armed, and no reserves....Even now the IDF could defeat them in
a head-on clash, so the possibility of a war on that front represents no threat
to us....But Abdullah may become stronger in the future...and may try once again
to destroy us. Would a slip of paper called a peace treaty stop him?...Recent
experience indicates that it would not....

Because of our past experience, the present situation and
future possibilities, we are all amazed by this headlong pursuit of a peace
treaty with a vassal state which controls part of our homeland....Even if this
peace treaty were to bring us some benefit, this would not justify our signing
it....

...But the peace treaty accords official recognition by us to
the severing of Transjordan. The eastern part of it was taken away from us at
the famous Cairo Conference of 1922, in which Churchill, who was Colonial
Secretary, Herbert Samuel, Viceroy of India, and Intelligence Officer Lawrence,
participated. Since then a great deal of water has flowed in our Jordan River.
Despite my searches, I have not found any document issued by a Jewish or Zionist
body recognizing the severing of Transjordan from our homeland. That area was
recognized as being part of our territory by more than forty nations, as well as
by you, when Britain agreed to it. We ask: does a nation exist by the charity of
others?

Until 1937 Mr. Ben-Gurion opposed the establishment of a Jewish
state, maintaining that it involved our ruling another nation. In 1937...Lord
Peel, Copeland and two other British Gentiles said that Palestine should be
partitioned and a Jewish state established in the smaller part. From then on
Ben-Gurion was an ardent supporter of a Jewish state....When Britain changed its
mind about the Jewish homeland on both banks of the Jordan...when one old desert
king was driven out by another, and one of his sons had to be compensated and
another base built, and the control of Transjordan with its 250,000 Beduin and
Circassians was handed over to a foreign ruler who had no connection with them,
our institutions were prepared to accept that too....Our entire future depends
on the territorial integrity of our historic homeland...and you are prepared to
legitimize the annexation of part of it, of Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem and
Shechem, by a British-controlled, foreign ruler.

...The mutual defense clause in the British-Transjordanian
friendship treaty of 15 March 1948...means that if the King of England is at war
in Hong Kong or Malaya he will ask King Abdullah to come and rescue him....And
vice versa....That is what your recognition of Britain's right to establish
bases in the western part of the Land of Israel means....

Why are you so eager to sign a peace treaty with
Abdullah?...Are you afraid of him and his 15,000 soldiers?...Or is one of the
ministers, who promised the people "peace" in the election campaign, eager to
keep his word? Do not worry, it would not be the first time you failed to keep
an election promise. In the past you asked us what right we had to act as we did
in order to drive out the British oppressor, and we answered "we were
chosen."...It was at a time when our people were being slaughtered in Europe,
and the oppressor closed our gates and would not allow Jews in....Revolutions do
not take place after orderly resolutions have been passed. The Declaration of
the Rights of Man was written after the Bastille was stormed; the American
Declaration of Independence was drawn up after the Boston Tea Party. A
revolution always erupts from the depths.

But today we will ask you that question. You have acknowledged
the legitimacy of handing over Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, the Cave of
Machpela, Rachel's Tomb, Hebron, Bethlehem, Shechem, Gilead and Bashan to a
foreigner, an enemy, an oppressor. Who gave you this right? You were elected to
conduct the affairs of the country. The nation may reelect you or not....But
when were you authorized to hand over sites which have been historically
hallowed for 120 generations, and for which the blood of millions has been
shed?...

I would like to ask the religious Ministers and Knesset Members
if they have read the unfortunate memorandum which Mr. Sharett submitted to the
Conciliation Commission stating that Israel had no claim to the areas under the
control (not the illegal conquest, heaven forfend) of any Arab country. We were
told that not even the Government's statement on Independence Day was submitted
for your approval. I assume that you were unaware of this document too. But does
that mean that you should grant it your approval now?...You must choose between
the eternity of our attachment to the Land of Israel and your temporary
membership in a coalition government....

That is the situation in which the Government has placed us.
And then it is surprised that we are isolated....Does it think that the world is
blind? That it fails to see that we are willing to accept the annexation of
four-fifths of our homeland by Abdullah...and the reestablishment of British
bases?...You are going towards bondage...and further isolation....

You should read the article in the Times agreeing with
the "de jure" recognition of Israel, but warning that "Israel's territorial
ambitions" should not be tolerated. You will yet be asked to abandon not only
what you have relinquished but the territory we hold....Mr. Sharett, you have
received a letter from the State Department demanding that compensation be paid
for the areas we liberated and which were not included in Israel as defined by
the U.N. resolution of November 29. You replied that there is no one to give
compensation to since there are only invading armies in Palestine. Now there is
someone to give it to....You have recognized the annexation....That kingdom has
been recognized by Britain and America, and other countries will follow; then
the demands will start, whether for Haifa, the southern Negev or other
areas.

I would like to announce, on behalf of my party, that I do not
think that this problem can be resolved anymore by a show of hands. I wish to
state that...we do not accept the Israel Government's recognition of what has
happened in the eastern and western parts of Transjordan. In civilized countries
what one government decides is generally binding on others....But this signature
is not binding upon us, it is the signature of this Government alone....The
entire Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and we will not recognize
the right of Abdullah or Britain to govern one inch of our homeland.

...Z. Abrahamowitz (Mapai): If an independent Arab state
were to be established now we would be facing the front of the Arab League and
its pressure in the U.N. to push us back to the borders of November 1947,
against which we would have fought....But even a purely political dispute would
have caused a rift between us and the U.N. If an Arab state were established I
believe that this would temporarily strengthen the Arab League, which is
generally regarded as being anti-Soviet and anti-Israel. The U.S.S.R.'s retreat
from the demand to internationalize Jerusalem may be partly due to the fact that
it has realized this.

But we must take the longer view. We are interested in the
stability of the Middle East....At the moment Iraq wants to take over Syria,
Syria wants to take over Lebanon, Transjordan wants to take over Syria, and
Egypt apparently wants to take them all over....If another "independent" Arab
state were to arise and wish to take over Israel, and all the Arab countries
wanted to take the new state over, would that add to peace and stability in the
Middle East?

Distinguished Knesset, if the status quo no longer exists, if
we must oppose a new Arab state, only the third possibility--war--remains....In
Tel Aviv, where he spoke with less restraint than here, MK Begin referred not
only to the Triangle but also to the Bashan and Amman. His concern for security
is shared by all the Opposition parties when it comes to the application of the
British-Transjordanian treaty to the annexed territory. We are all anxious, and
have been for some time, because that treaty has existed for some time....But I
claim that there is something new in it now, namely, that it strengthens the
tendency for British military participation in the annexed area, and also that
England has announced that the treaty will be held in abeyance during
peacetime.

M. Begin (Herut): Do you believe that assurance?

Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): I cannot guarantee that any
assurance will be kept, the debate is not about who trusts England more or less,
however, but about how we should act in the circumstances.

Mr. Begin said what he did relying on historical reasons, which
I do not accept. During the course of the history of the Jewish people in Israel
the borders have changed....We do not have to achieve in two years what the
Jewish nation was unable to do for two thousand.

M. Begin (Herut): Do we have to give it up?

Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): Two and a half years ago the
public in Israel and the Zionist Organization held different views about
partition. Some people opposed an Arab state on principle, some wanted a Jewish
state...in all western Palestine, and some wanted a Jewish state on both banks
of the Jordan. But the World Zionist Organization...decided, taking the
historical circumstances into account, to accept a Jewish state in western
Palestine. The Government of Israel and the IDF also decided, expanding Israel's
borders through conquest....What representative body has authorized you to speak
about your political borders, Mr. Begin...?

E. Raziel-Na'or (Herut): They shouldn't be blocked!

Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): In his speech in Tel Aviv Mr.
Begin also made use of sentimental reasons, claiming "Rachel weeps for her
sons," and mentioning Rachel's Tomb. I draw your attention to the thousands of
graves of the nation's best sons who fell in Israel's war and the mothers who
weep for them. Who wants a war of expansion? The workers? The landlords? Mothers
and fathers? The youngsters? The IDF? On no account!

N. Yellin-Mor (Fighters): You are mocking the IDF.

Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): A war of expansion now would
also endanger our national existence. You should say quite clearly: "We oppose x
and y, and propose war." And if you do not say that to us in the Knesset, how
can you appear in Israel's public squares and incite the nation to war?

E. Raziel-Na'or (Herut): There we said that we don't
want war.

Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): There you said: "The Hashemite
kingdom shall be destroyed by the sword."

Y. Bader (Herut): You'll have war when they want it.

Z. Aharonowitz (Mapai): We do not ignore the fact that
the annexation was a unilateral step...that the British-Transjordanian treaty
has been extended to the annexed territory and that Britain's statement contains
reservations about Israel's borders. All that is worrying. Those points are
included in the Government's statement. The Knesset must authorize the
Government to deal with the situation on the basis of two clear elements:
rejection of the alternative of an independent Arab state, and adherence to the
aspiration for peace.

Y. Harari (Progressives): Every now and again, when this
debate is held in the Knesset, one gets the impression that there are ardent
patriots on one side and stubborn defeatists on the other. This debate has been
conducted, in my view, for the last thirteen years, since 1937, when Zionist
policy was obliged to decide whether to agree to an independent Jewish state in
part of Palestine.

MK Begin has told us of the qualms of conscience he and his
friends experienced when they did what they did. I can say that my conscience
bothered me...when I decided in favor of partition....It is far easier to
address meetings, or even this Knesset, about Israel's historic borders than to
explain to the nation that we should set our sights lower and accept imperfect
borders....

I doubt whether it has often happened...that a political plan
has been as successful...as that of those who advocated partition. We would
never have achieved the decision of November 29 had we not agreed, unwillingly
but perceptively, to a Jewish state in part of Palestine. None of the facts and
operations by which MK Begin and his associates think they brought about the
state would have helped had it not been for the official Zionist plan,
authorized by the Zionist Congress.

M. Begin (Herut): The last Congress rejected that plan
utterly. It forbade you to go to London.

The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: It did not reject it,
that is not true!

Y. Harari (Progressives): We all want a great many
things, but one has to know how and when to accept facts, and not to miss
opportunities. The fact that Israel agreed to the partition borders does not
mean that Rachel's Tomb has ceased to be a national monument for us, the Cave of
Machpelah will always be the site where our forefathers are buried, Jericho will
still be the town whose walls fell at the sound of the trumpets and the
historical borders in the Bible will never change. But this did not prevent us
agreeing to the possible borders at the appropriate moment. Did we fight less
for the areas which were not within the partition borders of 29 November 1947?
Did we not do everything possible at the right moment, in the war, to conquer
them?

H. Landau (Herut): Of course you didn't.

Y. Harari (Progressives): Only you did!

H. Landau (Herut): The Gentiles stopped and our
Government surrendered.

Y. Harari (Progressives): One also has to know when to
stop during a ceasefire.

Y. Bader (Herut): One also has to know when not to
stop.

Y. Harari (Progressives): Correct, and that's what we
did, at the right moments. Are our borders today those we fixed of our own free
will, or are they the outcome of various conditions and circumstances, both
military and political, as well as of political resolutions passed in an
international forum?

Those areas are not in our possession as the result of
circumstances which were beyond our control. One does not choose one's enemies,
or even the regimes in hostile countries, nor does one sign armistice agreements
with allies....We cannot prevent Lebanon giving bases to America if the
Christians there prevail over the Moslems. We could not prevent any Arab country
giving bases to the devil himself unless we conquered those areas. If that's
what you want, then say so in the Knesset. Only MK Yellin-Mor has consistently
demanded that we fight for those areas....

The complaint Mapam proposes we submit to the Security Council
is not clear to me either. The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan is not a member of
the U.N....Should we complain against England for making an agreement with the
Hashemite kingdom; for recognizing us "de jure"; or because it has announced
that it will not establish bases in peacetime?...And whence this sudden,
exaggerated trust in the decisions of the Security Council?

Because time is pressing...I will merely add...that the
U.S.S.R.'s announcement is surprising. I never know when to take what the Maki
MKs say seriously and when they are merely following the dictates of
opportunism. Out of compassion for dumb animals I will drop the subject. But I
would like to ask Mapam, which has often said that any contact with the
government of Transjordan makes the U.S.S.R. our enemy--

I. Ben-Aharon (Mapam): We never said that....That's not
true.

Y. Harari (Progressives): You have said it not only from
this podium but also in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

You...are always asking why we should negotiate with a vassal
of England and of imperialism and thereby arouse the enmity of the U.S.S.R.

I. Ben-Aharon (Mapam): I repeat that that is untrue.

Y. Harari (Progressives): Those things are in the
record, in black on white, and can be found there. I would like to recommend
that this Knesset resolve that Israel and its Government should continue with
its foreign policy of attempting to protect our interests...without being
concerned with what impression this makes on either East or West. Only by being
consistent will we gain the support of both East and West and become a strong
state which is generally respected.

J. Burg (Religious Front): Distinguished Knesset...As a believing Jew, I must confess that I cannot grasp the
great sacrifice of six million Jews which our nation lost in the war. I find
some small consolation in the fact that this tiny corner is left to us, and we
can build it....I think that the task of our generation is to build, and refrain
from doing anything--as long as there is no provocation--which could impede this
task.

I very much regret the fact that we are obliged to discuss
annexation here rather than the agreed basis for a political settlement in the
region, at least as regards our closest neighbor. But if the Arab world that
opposes us is divided, and if some understanding can be reached, even if only
temporary, with part of that Arab world, it should be done. Because it is our
duty to preserve every drop of Jewish blood that remains.

The previous speaker said that a decision in principle was made
in the past about partition, not only in the Knesset but even before the
establishment of the state, and without it neither the Knesset nor the state
would have come into existence....Consequently, I maintain, we may have to take
a course which is not pleasant for us....We have also heard MK Begin talk about
the religious parties, and I do not know whether he was praising or condemning
us. He claimed that we have abandoned the concept of the Divine promise. We have
not relinquished the view that God will keep His promise.

I. Ben-Aharon (Mapam): To what do you adhere
meanwhile?

J. Burg (Religious Front): We adhere to the commandments
which you wish to neglect.

E. Preminger (Mapam): And force others to adhere to
them!

J. Burg (Religious Front): ...There is really no point
answering such remarks. Our scriptures tell us what will happen to the
generation before the Messiah. They mention suffering--which we have undergone
in large quantities....They mention poverty--towards which our Minister of
Finance is helping us. They also state that we must build in Israel. We must
live according to moral precepts--which we are trying to do. That is why I
disagree with the argument that we have abandoned the concept of the Divine
promise. He who attempts to live in accordance with God's holy law will, I hope,
deserve to see the Divine promise fulfilled.

...The Jews who still believe in God and His promises continued
to believe in all of Jerusalem, Rachel's Tomb, Hebron and the whole country when
they were in the...diaspora, and still do so today, living in those parts of
Israel which are ours.

...I think that the Government's representative spoke clearly.
The annexation is a unilateral act...to which we do not agree. I think it is
harmful if the Opposition in this House pretends that we did agree to it.

E. Preminger (Mapam): Do you want bilateral
annexation?

J. Burg (Religious Front): I oppose barren
argumentativeness!...Jewish history did not begin yesterday and does not end
today. The history of Israel depends not on unilateral declarations, but on
Divine decrees. I think that it is our task, in our situation, to find the path
which is not always readily apparent but leads from the Divine intention to the
exigencies of the moment. I think that the entire House should take care in
posing questions and in weakening the position of the Government on an issue
which is vital for us.

...

The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: The genuine excitement
expressed here regarding the annexation is worthy of attention....It is shared
by the general population, and I hope that those involved will take it into
account. The State of Israel cannot be indifferent to the fate of an area with
whose history it is so closely bound up and whose regime and military status is
likely to have so direct an influence on its security. The Government has
declared...that as far as it is concerned the issue remains open, because
without our assent and cooperation, which have not yet been given, no regime can
regard itself as being stable and sure there. We seek stability, security and
peace, both for ourselves and for the entire region, but these will be attained
only through cooperating with us.

...Not all the excitement expressed here can be regarded as
genuine, however. When MK Begin deliberately distorts the Government's position,
representing it as having agreed to the annexation, he ignores the fact that he
is thereby destroying the building which he is supposedly seeking to erect. But
he does not really want to build anything; all he seeks is to destroy the
Government's standing, and he has failed in that too....He has merely reiterated
his bombastic and empty phrases about both banks of the Jordan, the Bashan and
the Golan Heights.

M. Begin (Herut): There was a time when the Jewish state
was a bombastic phrase too, as far as you were concerned.

The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: In fact, if one
listens to him...he has made his own words meaningless. His contention is that
we decided matters long ago...by signing an Armistice Agreement with Jordan. If
that is the case, what is the point of this very much overdue debate? It has
already been said that this policy, which led to our signing armistice
agreements with all the neighboring Arab countries...has gained the support of
the entire nation. In accordance with his party's tradition of distorting facts,
MK Begin also twisted what I said in the election campaign which preceded the
establishment of this Knesset. I never took it upon myself...to guarantee the
voters peace, but I said...that if my party were elected to office we would
aspire towards peace....I do not know what MK Begin promised in that election
campaign. I must confess that I did not interest myself in his speeches. But
whether he called for war or merely negated peace, the election results
indicated something. The party which I have the honor of representing and which
is a partner in the Government has 48 representatives in the Knesset, being 3.5
as many as Mr. Begin's party. This policy is no mere party matter, it is agreed
by all the participants in the Government....There are historical reasons for
the fact that this alliance of parties received the majority of votes in the
elections...and is united in adhering to a certain policy.

This policy led to the establishment of the state, and sustains
it still today, despite the immense difficulties. If we have been asked from
this podium: "Who authorized you?" Our reply is: The nation! First and foremost,
the Jewish nation, which approved the path its representatives had taken in
attaining a Jewish state in our time, if not in the whole country then at least
in part of it, in as large a part as possible, and as quickly as
possible....

MK Begin was guilty of another distortion when he said that the
last Zionist Congress forbade us to agree to partition. Quite the contrary. An
attempt was made by parties and persons to pass such a resolution, but it
failed....The Zionist Executive agreed by a large majority to a policy of
compromise in order to attain...international assent to the establishment of a
Jewish state in part of Palestine. The entire nation endorsed this policy...and
worked together to achieve it....The gates of heaven opened and the moment came
when we could attain what generations had dreamt of and died for. The entire
nation endorsed our achievement unconditionally, celebrating our great victory
of 29 November 1947...both those who had supported our policy and those who had
opposed it....

...And what would have happened if...the Arab country which was
supposed to be established in the rest of Palestine, linked to Israel by
economic ties, had been created...and had then allied itself with one of the
neighboring Arab states...or with one of the Powers, against Israel's will? We
are confronted by a problem of that kind today, but our position is far better,
since we have control of 80 percent of our territory, the ports of Haifa and
Jaffa, roads, railways and Lod airport, and our sovereign-ty is no longer
threatened by the economic alliance with the Arab coun-try...although 20 percent
of our territory has been annexed by the neigh-boring Arab country....

We have said that we are ready to make peace with all our
neighbors, preferring separate negotiations with each one of them, and that we
accept the armistice lines as a basis for peace and a final territorial
settlement. We adhere to this policy, always having been ready to consider
mutual border adjustments.

MK Begin has asked why we are so hasty in our pursuit of peace,
and with Transjordan of all countries. I do not know whether peace with
Transjordan will be first, or whether there will be peace at all, or when. We
are not competing in prophecy. Our task is to determine policy, i.e., not to
guess what will be but to assess what we should do, and what will happen
tomorrow and the day after....What I do know is that we are surrounded by
enemies today, and that we can bear this situation, and have no need to break
out of it at all costs....If we are attacked we will be able to fight back, and
our successes in the second round of fighting may even be greater than they were
in the first....But our prime concern is to avoid a confrontation of that kind.
We are interested in peace and stability, for we have historic tasks to fulfill
and we must invest all our efforts in them....Even if peace is attained
tomorrow...we will continue to be on our guard, but we will know that there has
been a change. If we can only breach the ring of enemies around us we must do
so.

Why do you mock the armistice agreements as mere pieces of
paper?...Do those signatures have any value or not?

Y. Bader (Herut): Abdullah's signature has no value.

The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: You don't know what
you're talking about. And that is not the only subject on which you talk
nonsense....Anyone who says such things is undermining the...security of
Israel.

M. Begin (Herut): They're threatening another round
despite the signatures...as is the Chief of Staff....

The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: Am I proposing that we
disband the army? We must make every effort to breach the wall surrounding us,
but that does not mean that we should disarm ourselves. If this were all
pointless would there be such a fuss in the Arab camp about whether to make
peace with Israel or not, separately or together?

MK Begin took a sentence out of its context in a Foreign
Ministry memorandum, and accused us of relinquishing all territorial claims on
Transjordan. We have said that we accept the armistice lines as a basis for a
settlement and do not demand territory, but if MK Begin tries to represent this
as our abandonment of our rights to our holy places, this is nonsense. We have
never abandoned them, and we have said as much, and no side doubts that we
adhere to our claim to our share and our rights in the Old City of Jerusalem. If
MK Begin wishes to go out into the streets with the demand for the Temple Mount,
he is welcome to do so. Many people are strolling through the streets this
afternoon, and he can harangue them to his heart's content. I suggest that my
colleagues and the other members of the House rely on the man in the street.

Mr. Sapir claimed that the Foreign Ministry failed once again
to foresee what would happen.

J. Sapir (General Zionists): I only said that it had
erred in assessing the forces involved.

The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: Well, you said that it
had failed to foresee what would happen by erring in its assessment of the
forces involved. He said that we failed to envisage the internationalization of
Jerusalem, and now we have failed again, and this is a surprise. I don't know if
it is a surprise.

E. Raziel-Na'or (Herut): That means that it was agreed
in advance.

The Foreign Minister, M. Sharett: I'm coming to that. I
said that we had announced our readiness to reach an agreement on the basis of
the armistice lines. I also said that as long as there is no agreement the
question is open...and the other side must be aware of that....

MK Sapir recommends that we conduct an information campaign on
this matter at the U.N. He has presumably thought about what he said and his
proposal is undoubtedly based on a perceptive assessment of future developments.
MK Bar-Yehuda accused us of...having brought the British Empire back...and MK
Begin correctly pointed out that the British-Jordanian treaty includes a clause
whereby each side can invite the other into its territory....The treaty was
signed on 15 March 1948, namely, two years and two months ago, and we have been
living under that threat all this time....The neighboring country could have
invited the British forces into its territory, but it did not....We have been
informed that it has no intention of doing so. But its right still exists....The
British government also issued a statement to the effect that it would not
hasten to place troops here....

I do not see why some people have seen fit to treat this matter
as if the end of the world were approaching....We are certainly not happy about
it....Despite the assurances we have received on the subject from the British
government, it requires us to be on our guard, as does that government's policy
about the supply of arms to certain Middle Eastern countries and its attitude
to...separate peace agreements. Some of our recent contacts with the British
government have been of a positive nature. This is the case with the agreement
to settle outstanding economic differences...and the "de jure" recognition of
Israel....We have drawn the attention of our public and the world to aspects of
policy which cause us concern...and which we regard as being detrimental to
peace and stability in the Middle East, and to say that we acquiesced willingly
is a stupid distortion....

Our policy remains what it was, namely, to do what we can to
breach the wall surrounding us and to set the Middle East on a path of peace
rather than war. There is no guarantee that this will be attained, nor will we
attempt to guess when this will come about. Till then we will have to remain
fully on our guard. All our enemies and opponents should be aware of this, but
it must be evident what our policy is. We must decide what our aim is and go
towards it with open eyes.

N. Yellin-Mor (Fighters): Distinguished Knesset, Those
who oppose Abdullah's act of plunder on the basis of the principle of the
integrity of the homeland...can be accused by those who acquiesce in it of
making a great deal of fuss over...a lost cause.

I admit that there is some logic in that, but I would like to
make it clear here...that a new generation is growing up in Israel for which the
River Jordan is not the eastern border of the homeland, and for which Abdullah's
temporary conquests are meaningless....That generation foresees a future
homeland in its expanded, natural borders. There, and there alone, will the
millions of scattered Jews be gathered together and enabled to flourish
spiritually and materially, culturally and economically. Any fact which opposes
this view will not last long.

Thus, this debate is not about whether Abdullah, who was
expelled from the Arabian desert by Ibn-Saud, is entitled to rule over more or
less of our homeland. There is no place for a debate of that kind on historical
grounds or on principle. All Abdullah's territory, on both the east and the west
banks of the Jordan, is plundered.

The debate is, essentially, only about the attitude of the
Government of Israel to Abdullah's rule...and its refusal to work for the
liberation of the homeland....The annexation did not come as a surprise.
Everyone knew that Abdullah wanted it...including Israel's leaders, who were
suffering from their customary myopia. The function of any foreign policy is to
prevent neighbors from expanding territorially...and threatening one's own
country.

It could, therefore, have been supposed that the Government of
Israel, being aware of Abdullah's intentions, would have issued a warning, or
warnings, saying that any attempt at annexation would be regarded as a hostile
act....But our Foreign Ministry did nothing!...And it is obvious that Abdullah
knew that no reaction would be forthcoming from Israel....

The inaction of our leaders at this time is comparable to that
of those who went to Munich....The only possible explanation must lie in the
ongoing love affair between the erstwhile, British-protected Emir and the Jewish
Agency, even though the adoration of the latter does not seem to be
reciprocated....There can be no other reason for the incessant pursuit of
Abdullah, since it is known that peace with him of necessity involves foregoing
peace with our other neighbors, with whom peace is more valuable, as well as
abandoning our claim to most of our homeland....His entire kingdom has been
obtained by plunder....

The Foreign Ministry has tried to auction off "peace with
Israel," but there are no buyers....I doubt whether those who fell so that the
state might be established wanted their blood to be sold thus....

...The Foreign Ministry's response was a shameful one...and
constitutes acceptance of daylight robbery...as well as tacit legitimization of
the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"...determining as its price negotiations and a
peace treaty....The religious parties appear to have subscribed to this
too....

The haste to make peace with Abdullah seems to have caused the
Government to take leave of its senses...but peace of this kind brings us ever
nearer to disaster....Abdullah has said that he intends to use Israel as a means
of getting to Damascus....There is no truth in the rumor that Israel's assent to
the situation is merely temporary, and that those areas will eventually be
redeemed. The Britain-Abdullah treaty enables British military bases to be
established there, and they will crush any attempt to liberate our lost
territory. Our experience of the past must teach us that Britain's assurance not
to establish bases there in peacetime will be abandoned at the appropriate
moment....But what is more significant is the implication that bases will be
established there in wartime.

...The danger cannot be exaggerated. Our country is at a focal
point for British imperialism, constituting a strategic area for delaying the
advance of the Soviet army in case of war. Britain would be interested in making
it a front then...and the entire country would become a battlefield....Accepting
the annexation is a big step in that direction. In these circumstances there can
be no alternative for the Government than to tell the Minister of Defense to
instruct the General Staff to complete the interrupted War of Independence.

I know that this resolution will not be passed here today, but
the situation will oblige us to follow that path eventually, whatever the
composition of the government. I pray that it will not be too late.

...

The Speaker, J. Sprinzak: I will allow resolutions to be
submitted.

J. Kusoy (Mapai): I submit the following resolution:
"The Knesset notes the Government's statement regarding the annexation, with its
attendant reservations."

H. Rubin (Mapam): On behalf of the Mapam faction I
submit the following resolution:

A. The Knesset regards the annexation of the territories on the
West Bank as detrimental to:

The historical aspiration of the Jewish people to restore the integrity of
the country.

The right of the Arab population in that part of the country
annexed by Transjordan to political independence within the framework of
economic unity with Israel.

The terms of the Armistice Agreement between Israel and
Transjordan. It also constitutes a threat to Israel's security and independence
by extending the application of the British-Transjordanian treaty to the West
Bank.

B. The Knesset declares that the state of Israel will not
recognize or accept the annexation, and asks the Government to submit a
complaint to the Security Council:

Against the illegal act of annexation.

Against the arbitrary extension of the British-Transjordanian treaty to part
of Palestine.

C. The Knesset approves the Government's refusal to
resume the negotiations for a peace treaty with Transjordan if the annexation is
not annulled.

J. Meridor (Herut): Distinguished Knesset, the faction
to which I have the honor of belonging does not think that the subject of this
evening's debate, the socalled annexation of part of our homeland by Abdullah,
is one on which a vote should be taken. We will not participate in the voting,
therefore.

On behalf of the Herut Movement founded by the IZL, I
declare:

In aspiring towards a political-territorial agreement with the
area indirectly conquered by Britain in eastern Palestine known as the
"Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" the Government has brought about the relinquishing
of part of our homeland, the annexation of parts of western Palestine, effective
recognition of Britain's right to establish and maintain military bases in our
country on both banks of the Jordan and the total isolation of Israel in the
international arena.

We do not, and never will, recognize the plunder of part of our
homeland by an enemy and an oppressor. The entire Land of Israel is ours. The
Government's recognition of the illegal conquest, whe-ther through signing a
peace treaty with the conquerors or in any other way, does not and will not
commit the Jewish people and its youth.

M. Wilner (Maki): Maki's resolution is as follows:

The Knesset resolves not to recognize and to oppose the annexation of the
Arab parts of Palestine by the Transjordanian kingdom;

The Knesset resolves to ask the Security Council to take steps against
Britain and Transjordan for the illegal annexation of part of Palestine by
Transjordan, constituting a British base;

The Knesset resolves to support the struggle of the Arab masses in the rest
of Palestine to establish a democratic, peace-loving, independent state which is
friendly to Israel.

Furthermore, I would like this proposal to be put to the vote,
while at the same time our faction will vote for Mapam's proposal since it
contains two principles we share: opposition to the annexation and agreement in
principle to an independent Arab state.

J. Sapir (General Zionists): I would like to state,
though not to put to the vote, our refusal to recognize the annexation. We
authorize the Government to refrain from recognizing it.

The Speaker, J. Sprinzak: We will now vote on the
proposals.

The Vote

Those in favor of MK J. Kusoy's proposal

53

Those in favor of MK H. Rubin's proposal

16

Those in favor of MK M. Wilner's proposal

2

MK Kusoy's proposal: "The Knesset notes the Government's
statement regarding the annexation, with its attendant reservations," is
adopted.

The Knesset has heard and placed on record the Herut faction's
statement that it will not participate in the vote.

About Me

American born, my wife and I moved to Israel in 1970. We have lived at Shiloh together with our family since 1981. I was in the Betar youth movement in the US and UK. I have worked as a political aide to Members of Knesset and a Minister during 1981-1994, lectured at the Academy for National Studies 1977-1994, was director of Israel's Media Watch 1995-2000 and currently, I work at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem. I was a guest media columnist on media affairs for The Jerusalem Post, op-ed contributor to various journals and for six years had a weekly media show on Arutz 7 radio. I serve as an unofficial spokesperson for the Jewish Communities in Judea & Samaria.